Mr Ivan Phillips, Mrs Patricia Phillips, Ivan & Patricia Phillips (a firm) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 354 (TC) (19/06/2013)
DECISION
1.
There were two matters before the Tribunal at the hearing:
(1)
An application by the Third Appellant for admission of a late appeal
against assessments for the tax years 2004-05 and 2005-06 (File number
TC/2012/3042)
(2)
Appeals by the First and Second Appellants against the Information
Notices issued by HMRC on 29 January 2009 (Files numbers TC/2010/940 & 961)
The Late Appeal Application
2.
The notice of appeal was sent to the Tribunal on 10 February 2012
appealing against a decision contained in an HMRC letter dated 23 February 2010
(“the Decision Letter”).
3.
Mr Shepherd confirmed that HMRC objected to the late appeal application,
and pointed out that the Tribunal itself had in a letter to the Appellants
dated 28 July 2010 (in relation to Files numbers TC/2010/940 & 961) warned
them that the Tribunal had no record of any appeal against assessments for the
tax years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Appellants had still taken no action for
well over a year.
4.
In response to questions from the Tribunal Mr Shepherd agreed that the
relevant correspondence contained some procedural irregularities, in that the
Decision Letter did not advise the recipients of their appeal rights against
the decision, nor offer a formal internal review of the decision.
5.
Decision on the Late Appeal Application - Having considered the
correspondence between the parties available to the Tribunal, especially the
absence from the Decision Letter of information concerning appeal procedures or
right to request a formal internal review, the Tribunal decided that it would
be in the interests of fairness and justice to allow the appeal to be admitted
out-of-time and thus this Application is GRANTED.
6.
Case Management Direction – At the hearing the Tribunal DIRECTED
that HMRC should prepare and serve their statement of case in the normal
manner, no later than 31 May 2013.
The Information Notice Appeals
The Appellants’ Case
7.
Mr Phillips submitted that the information notices were just one
incident in a “war” going back many years being waged by HMRC in connection
with a company, Castle Finance Limited (“Castle”), ultimately owned by Mr
Phillips and his family. Eventually, all assessments issued against Castle had
been withdrawn by HMRC. HMRC had now turned its guns against Mr & Mrs
Phillips in a further attempt to extract money. Castle had been a
deposit-taking institution and then a registered bank, and then had been very
successful commercially until the property crash. There were several millions
of pounds of carried forward losses. The current dispute concerned tax
deductions for interest paid on monies borrowed by Mr & Mrs Phillips to fund
a property lettings business carried on by Mr & Mrs Phillips (“the Lettings
Business”). HMRC were maintaining that interest was, at least in part, not
deductible from income from the Lettings Business. That was incorrect because
it was HMRC’s own practice that if money was withdrawn from a business (for
whatever purpose, even the purchase of luxury items) then the proprietor was
still entitled to deduct interest incurred on replacement capital.
8.
Information notices had first been issued on 14 January 2009. There was
a meeting with HMRC on 27 January. On 29 January new notices were issued. The
notices should not be upheld because:
(1)
HMRC were not entitled to raise a second set of notices, and were
estopped from so doing.
(2)
Alternatively, the requirements of the notices were onerous. Adequate
information had already been provided to HMRC and the officer leading the
enquiry, Mr Plummer, had verbally accepted the explanations given by the
Appellants.
(3)
Alternatively, the notices were issued out of spite and contrary to
HMRC’s own internal guidance.
HMRC’s Case
9.
Mr Shepherd submitted that the relevant notices were those issued on 29
January 2009. They had been issued because of representations made at the
meeting on 27 January and were of reduced extent from the earlier notices, because
HMRC had accepted some of the representations made at the meeting and
accordingly cut the scope of the earlier notices.
10.
The notices sought both (a) information required and (b) documents
required. All of the information and documents listed in the notices was
reasonably required by HMRC in connection with the matters under
investigation. Until HMRC had the requested information they could not form a
view on the Appellants’ contention concerning the deductibility of the interest
in dispute. The documents requested were necessary because HMRC had to date
not seen any bank statements separating business from personal finance.
Relevant Law
11.
The appeals are governed by s 19A Taxes Management Act 1970 which
provides:
“19A Power to call for
documents for purposes of certain enquiries
(1) This section applies
where an officer of the Board gives notice of enquiry under section 9A(1) or
12AC(1) of this Act to a person (“the taxpayer”).
(2) For the purpose of the
enquiry, the officer may at the same or any subsequent time by notice in
writing require the taxpayer, within such time (which shall not be less than 30
days) as may be specified in the notice—
(a) to produce to the
officer such documents as are in the taxpayer's possession or power and as the
officer may reasonably require for the purpose of determining whether and, if
so, the extent to which —
(i)
the return is incorrect or incomplete, or
(ii)
in the case of an enquiry which is limited under section 9A(5) or 12AC(5) of
this Act, the amendment to which the enquiry relates is incorrect, and
(b) to furnish the officer
with such accounts or particulars as he may reasonably require for that
purpose.
(2A) The officer of the
Board may also (whether or not he imposes a requirement under subsection (2)
above), by a notice in writing, require the taxpayer, within such time (which
shall not be less than 30 days) as may be specified in the notice—
(a) to produce to the
officer such documents as are in the taxpayer's possession or power and as the
officer may reasonably require for the purpose of making a determination for
the purposes of section 9D(1)(c) or 12AE(1)(c) of this Act, and
(b) to furnish the officer
with such accounts or particulars as he may reasonably require for that
purpose.
(3) To comply with a notice
under subsection (2) or (2A) above, copies of documents may be produced instead
of originals; but—
(a) the copies must be
photographic or otherwise by way of facsimile; and
(b) if so required by a
notice in writing given by the officer, in the case of any document specified
in the notice, the original must be produced for inspection by him within such
time (which shall not be less than 30 days) as may be specified in the notice.
(4) The officer may take
copies of, or make extracts from, any document produced to him under subsection
(2), (2A) or 4 (3) above.
(5) A notice under subsection
(2) or (2A)]3 above does not oblige the taxpayer to produce documents or
furnish accounts or particulars relating to the conduct of —
(a) any pending appeal by
him, or
(b) any pending referral to
the tribunal under section 28ZA of this Act to which he is a party.
(6) An appeal may be brought
against any requirement imposed by a notice under subsection (2) above to
produce any document or to furnish any accounts or particulars.
(7) An appeal under
subsection (6) above must be brought within the period of 30 days beginning
with the date on which the notice under subsection (2) or (2A) above is given.
(8) Subject to subsection
(9) below, the provisions of this Act relating to appeals shall have effect in
relation to an appeal under subsection (6) above as they have effect in
relation to an appeal against an assessment to tax.
(9) On an appeal under
subsection (6) above section 50(6) to (8) of this Act shall not apply but the
tribunal may—
(a) if it appears that the
production of the document or the furnishing of the accounts or particulars was
reasonably required by the officer of the Board for the purpose mentioned in
subsection (2) or (2A) above, confirm the notice under that subsection so far
as relating to the requirement; or
(b) if it does not so appear,
set aside that notice so far as so relating.
(10) Where, on an appeal
under subsection (6) above, the tribunal confirms the notice under subsection
(2) or (2A) above so far as relating to any requirement, the notice shall have
effect in relation to that requirement as if it had specified 30 days beginning
with the determination of the appeal.
(11) The determination of
the tribunal of an appeal under subsection (6) above shall be final and
conclusive (notwithstanding the provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the TCEA
2007).
(12) Where this section
applies by virtue of a notice given under section 12AC(1) of this Act, any
reference in this section to the taxpayer includes a reference to any
predecessor or successor of his.”
Consideration and Conclusions
12.
The Tribunal is aware of the technical point concerning deductibility of
interest incurred on borrowed replacement capital but the information requested
by HMRC was required to put HMRC in the position to be able to be satisfied
that there had been replacement capital in this case. Mr Phillips’ objection
to the information request was based on an assumption that he had already
proved his point concerning the replacement capital, whereas in fact the
information was required by HMRC to satisfy themselves on that very point. We
consider the information set out in the first part of the notices is reasonably
required by HMRC.
13.
Turning to the documents required by the notices, these relate to bank
statements and statements of money market transactions. The Letting Business
is run through a bank account that also includes items of personal
expenditure. At the hearing there was an initial misunderstanding between Mr
Phillips and the Tribunal on this point, but Mr Phillips clarified that the
bank account 71135007 (referred to in the notices) has contained comingled
private and business monies. We consider that details of the transactions in
that bank account are reasonably required by HMRC, as they relate at least in
part to transactions of the Letting Business. However, we are not persuaded
that the other documents requested by the notices are likely to provide vital
information to HMRC in connection with their investigation, and we consider
that on balance it would be unduly onerous to require the Appellants to provide
those other documents. Accordingly we will remove those other documents from
the requirements of the notices.
Decision on the Information Notice Appeals
14.
The Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The Information Required as stated in
the schedules to the two information notices was reasonably required by HMRC
and we confirm that part of the notices. However, the Documents Required as
stated in the schedules to the two information notices were reasonably required
by HMRC only so far as stated in paragraph 1(i) thereof and the documents
described in paragraphs 1(ii), 2 & 3 thereof were not so required;
accordingly paragraph 1(i) thereof is confirmed but paragraphs 1(ii), 2 & 3
thereof are set aside.
15.
The effect of the above is that in both notices the Information
Required remains as stated but the Documents Required are deleted and replaced
with the following: “Bank statements relating to your current account numbered
71135007 for the period 4 March 2002 to 21 March 2007.”
16.
As stated to the Appellants at the hearing, the Tribunal extends the
deadline for compliance with the amended information notices to 31 May 2013.
Appeal Rights relating to both the Late Appeal Application and the
Information Notice Appeals
17.
This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the
decision and replaces the summary decision notice issued to the parties on 27
March 2013. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for
permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be
received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to
that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from
the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this
decision notice.
PETER
KEMPSTER
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 19 June 2013